Random thoughts

There was a round-up of illegal aliens in Marin County. The story included the obligatory reference to the children who had to watch their parents being arrested for illegal activity:

Wilson said children watched while their parents and other adults were taken away by authorities. Some were removed while accompanying children to the school bus, he said.

“They are taking parents of citizen children,” Wilson said. “Most people are just dealing with the shock and the loss and trying to find their loved ones.”

One point and one suggestion. The point is that one never reads stories about the trauma suffered by children whose parents are arrested for crimes other than being illegal aliens. Apparently it’s only the children of illegal aliens who suffer newsworthy emotional trauma. And the suggestion: why don’t we say that, if Mom and Dad are illegally here, so are you, regardless of where you were born? That way parents and kids can stay together, here or there.


America is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. China and Russia used to castigate her for her temerity in developing missiles. Now they scold her for her temerity for developing defenses to their (and others’) missiles. Since American can’t win, one does get the sense that she could go ahead and do whatever the Hell she deems best for her security.


Speaking of Russia, I find it somehow amusing that Russia is upset that finally, long after the Cold War ended, an American movie once again reverted to its pre-Leftist roots and depicted the Communists as bad guys. (And yes, I know that during WWII, the Lefties in Hollywood went nuts making movies glorifying Communism, but that stopped for a while when the Cold War actually began.) I thought the Russians had abandoned Communism, having recognized that it wasn’t beneficial for them. Why, then, are they taking it personally now? Could it be that, when it comes to Putin, once a KGB apparatchik, always a KGB apparatchik?


Hillary is historically accurate that things can happen in a primary between there and now (whenever that here and now is) and the actual convention, where the delegates place the final imprimatur on their candidate of choice. Nevertheless, with a woman as calculated as Hillary, it’s hard to believe that it was coincidence that she mentioned that a primary candidate could be assassinated in the June before the convention. It’s a nasty thing to do, and it’s also a horrible thing to say about Americans, especially conservative Americans, with the implication that they’re still racist enough to do something like that.


Israel wiped out Iraq’s nascent nuclear arsenal, and the world has had cause to be grateful. Israel probably wiped out Syria’s nascent nuclear arsenal, and the world ought to be grateful. There’s talk now about Israel once again taking on responsibility for the world and wiping out Iran’s nuclear arsenal. Many are afraid that, if she does so, Iran will strike back like a wounded, but still dangerous, animal. Tellingly, one pair of experts isn’t that worried. Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy wrote a paper called “The Last Option,” in which they discuss the possibility of a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. In an interview about their conclusions, Clawson had this to say:

And what will be a possible result of an Israeli attack?

Again, my answer is that it depends. Israel has to create the circumstances in which world public opinion will understand Israel and its motives, even if it regrets the attack.

That’s more or less what happened with the attack against the nuclear facility in Syria?

Yes, it is quite similar. Israel benefited from President Assad’s hostile attitude to the world, and therefore the international community showed understanding of the Israeli air force’s attack. Israel did not have to do much because Assad did the job for it. In this respect, Israel also benefits from Ahmadinejad and his statements. They help Israel present its position to the world and explain the threat it faces.

Do you share the sweeping assessment of most experts that Iran’s reaction if attacked will be harsh and painful?

No. Iran’s record when it comes to its reactions in the past to attacks against it, or its important interests, is mixed. When the Taliban assumed power in Afghanistan and persecuted the Shi’ite minority there, Iran mobilized military forces on the border and threatened to respond, but in the end it did nothing. The same occurred when the U.S. shot down an Iranian passenger airline in 1988: Iran threatened to avenge the incident, but in the end the exact opposite happened. Not only did Iran not respond, but also the incident hastened its decision to agree to a cease-fire in the war with Iraq for fear that the U.S. was about to join the war on Saddam Hussein’s side.

In another incident during the war, Iranian boats attacked an American naval force that set out to mine the Gulf. The U.S. did not expect Iran to react, and was surprised. This did not stop it from sinking half of the Iranian fleet in response.

Iran has lately been threatening that if it is attacked it will close the Straits of Hormuz and block the flow of oil, and thereby damage the world economy. But this is a problematic threat, since it would also affect Iran’s friends and supporters, such as China and India. I have no doubt that in such a case, they would be angry at Iran.

But most experts estimate that in the event of an Israeli attack, the Iranians will respond with force and launch Shihab missiles at Israel.

It is possible, but first, the Shihab missiles are not considered particularly reliable. Iran deploys them without having done hardly any significant tests. Second, the Shihab’s guidance system is not very accurate. The missile’s range of accuracy is up to a kilometer. And finally, Israel’s aerial defense system – the Arrow missiles would certainly intercept quite a few Shihab missiles. Moreover, Iran’s firing missiles at Israel would enable Israel to respond in a decisive manner.

You can read the rest of the interview here.


And as a reminder of what the statists housed in today’s Democratic party are all about, I leave you with this video of the lovely Rep. Maxine Waters talking to America’s oil companies:

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    Just a few Post-it(R) questions:

    With regard to illegal aliens – how come the MSM doesn’t ever focus on how Mexico treats its illegal aliens. I assure you, the children of illegals in Mexico are far more traumatized.

    With regard to Russian and Chinese concerns about U.S. missile defenses (that work), could it be because they sense an opportunity? Obama has already publicly stated that he would close down the program.

    With regard to Hillary’s pinning her hopes on racists (let’s be frank, here), first…is anyone really surprised? Second, aren’t the only “racists” who have raised their heads thus far the bitter, gun-clinging, bible-thumping “white, working class” voters in the Democrat Party?

    With regard to Russia being upset because they are once-again portrayed as the bad guys in a Hollywood movie, could it be that part of it is shame that Hollywood feels free to cast them in a bad light while conversely being terrified to do the same to Islamic terrorists? How far they’ve fallen!

    With regard to Maxine Walters’ economic Marxism, can we really write off her views? She may be rock stupid but she certainly has a very significant constituency in the Democrat party (and Hollywood, or do I repeat myself), some of whom are very smart…and very dangerous.

    Just asking.

  • JackCoupal

    From the Fox video, it appears that Congressional intimidation of oil company executives has lost its effectiveness.

    Mr. Hoffmeister of Shell is as good at giving truth to power as anyone to date. His personal assault on Congress’ blockading of increasing petroleum supplies for the American people is a textbook case on how to do it.

    Let us have more backbone shone by the the only people who actually do the heavy lifting in providing gasoline for the United States.

    Congress now specializes in showboating, and it produces zero gasoline.

  • Ymarsakar

    With regard to Maxine Walters’ economic Marxism, can we really write off her views? She may be rock stupid but she certainly has a very significant constituency in the Democrat party (and Hollywood, or do I repeat myself), some of whom are very smart…and very dangerous.

    The solution is to make Maxine feel the pain caused by her oppression of the people. Or in anti-American terms, she needs to know what “blowback” exists for her actions.

    Humans are very similar to animals in that you can change their behavior with enough pain, Danny.

  • jj

    It has long struck me that one of the largest – perhaps the largest – problem with congress is the lack of downside for people who are manifestly jackasses.

    99% of this country regards Maxine Waters as a stone moron. She doesn’t operate to “economic Marxism” because the works of Marx were never released as Classic Comics, therefore you know perfectly well she’s never read (granting she can read) a word that Karl Marx ever wrote.

    She’s just operating to her own idiot belief (despite a superabundance of evidence to the contrary) that government could run something better than the private sector can.

    The problem is that though the country as a whole is affected by her, she isn’t accountable to the country as a whole. She is elected by a small coterie of dimwits to whom she can feed a sufficiency of favors to keep them thinking that she’s the cat’s ass – but we all get to pay for it.

    When I lived in New York I once wrote a letter to a congressman from a neighboring district (the execrable Charles Schumer before he got into the senate) and he wrote back to me and explained this problem with precision, pointing out that he didn’t have to care what I thought because I didn’tlive in his district. I wrote back to him and pointed out that when what came out of his mouth affected only the people who lived in his district and not all of us, then that would be fine. When what he was paid was a cost voted on and borne only by the people who lived in his district, then fine.

    This is the dichotomy: they are free to run to the shelter of their districts when feeling pressure, but they expect that they will affect all of us and be paid for by all of us – and their idiot ideas and pet projects will be paid for by all of us – when they’re out on the grandstanding or pontificating trail.

    This country is absolutely desperate for term limits.

    A step in the right direction would be the germ of an idea I had and expressed above. You want to run for congress, fine: your salary and perks will not be the same as everyone else’s: you will be paid whatever your district feels like paying you, which will be voted on every election cycle. Why should that be national? If your district is poor and only feels like paying you $40,000 a year, which is about right for working half the year – then that’s what you get. That right there would be a disincentive to making it a career. Why should we all pay for Maxine Waters? Or John Conyers? Or Nancy Pelosi?

  • Ymarsakar


    Re German media spinning this, why am I reminded of the old joke about Soviet media interpreting a race between the Soviet ambassador and the American ambassador? The American ambassador won. Soviet media spin: the American ambassador finished next to last, and the Soviet ambassador finished second.
    That I am reminded of this joke says something about the current state of German-American relations.

    Posted by: GringoTex | May 13, 2008 at 07:41 PM

    Read the comments to the post, it is very funny.

    Why should we all pay for Maxine Waters? Or John Conyers? Or Nancy Pelosi?

    Cause they’re the rulers God put over you.

  • Ymarsakar

    the American ambassador finished next to last, and the Soviet ambassador finished second.

    Btw, Book, as you can see here they gave the Americans equal time with the Soviets, and even gave the Americans more print space as well!!